8 replies to this topic

[Xenobia]

Yahoo Finance is reporting (thanks to Zencat for putting this up in Quick news) that MGM and Six Flags have made an agreement to build a theme park ride around the show Stargate 1.

On many levels this makes sense -- Six Flags has great rides, and Stargate 1 is a popular show that lends itself to such a concept. But this curious young lady is left with many questions:

1) Why didn't MGM think of a ride around 007?
2) Who pays whom for this privledge -- does Six Flags pay MGM for letting them make this ride, does MGM pay Six Flags for the promotion their program will surely get from this ride? Do both corporations equally share in the development, construction and profits from this ride.

3) If MGM is so concerned about finances that they are stalling on Pierce's contract, and IF MGM is putting out money for a ride at Six Flags (and I admit that is a big if), why would MGM rather spend the money on a ride with a theme park that has a spotty history of safety, as opposed to spending the money on a safe bet that is James Bond?

-- Xenobia

[Icephoenix]

Well they already have a 007 attraction Xen, have you forgotten License To Thrill? Which I believe it being hosted by - Paramount. Anyway, I'm happy about the news, I LOVE Stargate, I wish they just stuck more to te SG-1 theme though.

As for concentrating on SG 3000 and not Pierce, I'd say MGM are leaving it to EON at the moment. There isn't really much they can do before production starts.

[Turn]

I also can't understand why the MGM Studios theme park would never have a 007 ride considering how much emphasis it puts on it being the studio's cash cow. You could build an entire theme park around Bond's adventures.

And I could never understand why that License To Thrill thing showed up at theme parks owned by Paramount. It obviously had EON's cooperation, but was pretty lame in comparison to the Spider-Man and Back To the Future rides at Universal's theme parks.

Stargate is okay, but let's be honest, it's not the highest profile franchise out there. James Bond is universal and a household name.

[Mister Asterix]

3) If MGM is so concerned about finances that they are stalling on Pierce's contract, and IF MGM is putting out money for a ride at Six Flags (and I admit that is a big if), why would MGM rather spend the money on a ride with a theme park that has a spotty history of safety, as opposed to spending the money on a safe bet that is James Bond?

Why would anyone think these have anything to do with each other?

[Jim]

Quite; like asserting that one should shut the MGM Grand to pay for Mr Brosnan.

One wonders what MGM's theme park would be called. If a water park, "Down the Tubes" seems appropriate.

This has got the whiff of failing to organise extensive liquid refreshment in a brewery about it.

[Xenobia]

While Jim has a point about the MGM grand, and Mr. Brosnan's paycheck, I still feel that it is one organization, and if they have money to do one thing, (a theme ride), when clearly it is needed elsewhere (film making), the money should go where it is needed.

Perhaps I have no understanding of business.

Now as for Licence to Thrill, to be honest I had no idea it existed, but thank you for telling me.

-- Xenobia

[Loomis]

the money should go where it is needed.

Agreed. So what's a better way to spend it? On making children happy, or on swelling the bank account of a greedy actor? Tough call.

[Xenobia]

I prefer to look at it as a choice between keeping a forty year franchise alive, or building a ride in a theme park with a less that stellar safety record.

-- Xenobia

[TheSaint]

Forgive me for being rude Xen but, what exactly does this have to do with Bond?